RECONSIDERATION OF LAAHNC PETITION FAA

- 2015

- 5044

– Special Federal Aviation Regulation ( SFAR) f or Los Angeles County Coastal Shore Line Route

Los Angeles Area Helicopter Noise Coalition (LAAHNC) 1 of 5 Los Angeles Area Helicopter Noise Coalition (LAAHNC)
Post Office Box 571448 Tarzana, CA 91357

- 1448

Please provide all replies and communications regard this matter to: Richard Root, (310) 375

- 1594, email: rroot92477@aol.com

June 17 , 2016

US Department of Transportation

– Document Operations 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE West Building Ground Floor

Room W12

- 140 Washington, DC 20590

RECONSIDERATION OF LAAHNC PETITION FAA

- 2015

- 5044

SPECIAL FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION (SFAR) FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

COASTAL SHORE LINE ROUTE

On May 20, 2016, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) notified the Los Angeles Area Helicopter Noise Coalition (LAAHNC) that it was dismissing our petition (FAA

- 2015

- 50 44) to establish a helicopter route off the Los Angeles County shoreline. The purpose of this letter is to petition the FAA to reconsider its dismissal.

CFR §11.73 lists the following criteria the FAA considers when evaluating a petition: 1) The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise; 2) The priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and 3) The resources we have available to address these issues.

The FAA dismissal letter states, “After reviewing your request based on the current prior ities for the FAA and the guidelines found in §11.73, we determined the issue you raised does not meet the criteria to pursue rulemaking at this time.” There is no discussion as to what the FAA’s “current priorities” are or where the issue of helicopter no ise stands on the priority list. There is also no mention of lack of resources. But, it seems the main reason for the dismissal is that the FAA does not consider the issue of reducing helicopter noise in the Los Angeles County to be a high priority.

Under 14 CFR § 11.101, for the FAA to accept this petition for reconsideration, we must show the following: (a) That we have a significant additional fact and why we did not present it in our original petition; (b) That the FAA made an important factual error in its denial of our original petition; or (c) That the FAA did not correctly interpret a law, regulation, or precedent.

The FAA has very narrow grounds for accepting a request for reconsideration and they do not allow us to question its priorities. Howeve r, at the end of its four page letter the FAA also states that, “For the reasons above, we are dismissing your petition for rulemaking in accordance with 14 CFR §11.73. The

“reasons above” include a number of statements that seem to relate to the merits of our petition. Accordingly, we submit the following comments in support of our request for reconsideration. These comments consist of significant additional facts and factual errors, including misstatements and omissions of important facts.RECONSIDERATION OF LAAHNC PETITION FAA

- 2015

- 5044

– Special Federal Aviation Regulation ( SFAR) f or Los Angeles County Coastal Shore Line Route

Los Angeles Area Helicopter Noise Coalition (LAAHNC) 2 of 5 Significant Additional Facts

At the time we submitted our original petition on October 20, 2015, we were not aware that the FAA’s flight data analysis for the Palos Verdes Low and High Regions of Interest was not accurate. Subsequently, we became aware that the analysis significantly underrepresented the concentration of helicopter flights on the coastline in these regions. It appears that the FAA misidentified more than half of the helicopter flights as fixed wing planes. We brought this to the FAA’s attention o n May 2, 2016, and requested it review the analysis, but we have not received any explanation. We also submitted a comment on Regulations.gov explaining this issue. However, since it is not addressed in the FAA’s dismissal letter, we do not know whether it was considered. In any event, the volume of helicopter flights in this area is much greater than was known at the time we submitted our original petition. The heavier concentration of helicopter flights is compelling evidence of significant noise impacts on these
coastal communities and it should be taken into account.

Factual Errors

Listed below are statements taken directly from the FAA’s dismissal letter followed by LAAHNC comments (in italics ).

Geographic, Topographic and Climate Limitations

“ The geogr aphy that Los Angeles County encompasses is as diverse as the population. There are 1,875 square miles of mountains, with the highest point located 10,080 feet above sea level atop Mt. San Antonio, and 1,741 square miles of flatland that includes a low poi nt of nine feet below sea level in the City of Wilmington. The difference in elevation between the Los Angeles Civic Center and the surrounding mountains is greater than between the City of Denver and its surrounding mountains. Additionally, Los Angeles Co unty includes 75 miles of mainland coastline, plus an addi tional

129 square miles of islands. ”

LAAHNC Comment: The FAA provided no explanation as to how these features “limit” the creation of an offshore route. In fact, none of them do so. The shoreline ro ute we proposed is entirely over the ocean, not over any mountains.

“Los Angeles experiences two main and unique weather patterns: ‘June Gloom’ and ‘ the Santa Ana
winds.’ The first refers to the ocean fog that keeps the beach cities (and often all of the Los Angeles Basin) overcast into early afternoon and most common in June, but can occur any time between March
and mid

- August. The middle of autumn (October

- November) often brings the Santa Ana winds, strong,

hot winds from across the desert that increase brush

- fire danger and reverse the prevailing offshore winds. Topography and climate conditions play an important role in a pilot's decision whether to fly and what routes to use, especially during the hazy days during the ‘June Gloom.’ Reduced visibility

a nd lower cloud ceilings force visual flight rules (VFR) helicopters to fly at lower altitudes.”

LAAHNC Comment: This paragraph contains several errors. Obviously, pilots should not fly VFR in low clouds when they cannot see. Under such conditions they shou ld not fly along the coastline at all. Instead they should choose other routes. “June Gloom” does not preclude the creation of an offshore route to be used when weather conditions do permit, which is the vast majority of the time. Also, the phrase “prevail ing offshore winds” is factually incorrect. In fact, the prevailing winds are onshore, not offshore. Moreover, offshore Santa Ana winds do not occur “often.” According to a study done by

the University of California, Los Angeles, Santa Ana winds average on ly 20 times per year with an average duration of 1.5 days and they are also spread over a longer time period (September

- April). (Source: The Santa Ana Winds of California by M. N. Raphael

, Department of Geography, UniversityRECONSIDERATION OF LAAHNC PETITION FAA

- 2015

- 5044

– Special Federal Aviation Regulation ( SFAR) f or Los Angeles County Coastal Shore Line Route

Los Angeles Area Helicopter Noise Coalition (LAAHNC) 3 of 5 of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California). In addition, Santa Ana winds affect the entire Los Angeles basin with the strongest winds near mountain passes, not the shoreline. If the Santa Ana winds

are too st rong to fly near the shoreline, they are most likely too strong to fly throughout the Los Angeles area. The fact that there are occasional Santa Ana winds does not preclude the creation of an offshore route. Finally, our proposed regulation included a prov ision that stated pilots may deviate from the routes when necessary for safety and weather conditions. These atypical weather conditions do not preclude establishment of a route that could be used the vast majority of the time, just as these
conditions do not prevent the FAA from developing a “voluntary” route. Whether the route is mandatory or voluntary, exceptions would have to be made for weather conditions.

“The FAA found the majority of the shoreline operations are conducted by single engine helicopte rs which are not equipped with float devices. Pilots maintain close proximity to the shoreline in order to safety [ sic ] conduct an autorotation in the event of emergency.”

LAAHNC Comment: The dismissal letter did not address our concern about putting the safety of the public on the ground at risk. Instead of attempting emergency landings on densely populated shores, helicopters that fly along the shoreline should be equipped with flotation devices so they can safely land in the ocean. The letter also fails to mention that the largest percentage of helicopters that fly along on the shorelines of Palos Verdes peninsula and the South Bay are Robinson Helicopter Company test flights. Unlike helicopters carrying passengers for hire, these test flights are not

re quired to fly close to shore. Instead, Robinson’s FAA permit requires them to conduct test flights in a large designated area over the Pacific Ocean, which extends from the shoreline up to two miles offshore, from Manhattan Beach to Long Beach. Therefore, these test flights should be flown farther offshore instead of on the shoreline. Moreover, whenever they follow the coastline, they certainly can and should use the route we proposed to be one mile offshore, still well within their designated test flight a rea.
“The lateral distance a helicopter is capable of maneuvering during an autorotation is different for each aircraft type. Placing a mandatory distance offshore for helicopter operations would require an increase in altitude in order for the pilot to s afely conduct an autorotation.”

LAAHNC Comment: This is a true statement, but it does not rule out the creation of an offshore route. The specific glide ratios of most helicopters used this area range from 4:1 to 5.5:1. The minimum glide ratio of 4:1 mean s that a helicopter can glide four feet laterally for every foot of altitude. So, a helicopter flying at an altitude of 1,500 feet can glide without power over 6,000 feet laterally (over a mile). The factual data indicate that a lateral distance offshore c ould be established that virtually all helicopters in use in this area would be capable of gliding from a reasonable altitude. The fact that the pilot has the discretion to fly as high as needed is not a limitation, as implied by the dismissal letter.

Inst ead, it provides flexibility for pilots to comply with the route. Finally, the FAA fails to mention that our proposed regulation provided for exceptions in the rare event that safety would not allow a pilot to fly high enough and the distance offshore exce eded a helicopter’s glide capability.

“The volume and complexity of fixed wing aircraft in Los Angeles County transitioning in various stages of flight (approach, departure, enroute) prohibits helicopters from flying at higher altitudes.”

LAAHNC Comment: This statement is incorrect. There is no regulation that “prohibits” helicopters from flying higher along the County’s 75

- mile coastline, except when necessary to comply with Air Traffic Control direction at the shoreline west of LAX , for a distance of ab out 2 miles. So, helicopter altitudes along nearly the entire coastline are flown at the pilot’s discretion and they occasionally fly at and above 2,000 feet, which demonstrates that it can be done.RECONSIDERATION OF LAAHNC PETITION FAA

- 2015

- 5044

– Special Federal Aviation Regulation ( SFAR) f or Los Angeles County Coastal Shore Line Route

Los Angeles Area Helicopter Noise Coalition (LAAHNC) 4 of 5 “In collaboration with stakeholders, the FAA has develop ed a voluntary offshore route in the greater Los Angeles County area that encourages and allows the safe operation of helicopters at a prescribed distance offshore. A safety review has been completed on the route and an environmental review is underway.”

L

AAHNC Comment: This statement implies that LAAHNC collaborated on the development of the voluntary offshore route. It mischaracterizes the facts. LAAHNC is the only stakeholder group representing the impacted public. Yet, we never had a chance to “collabor ate” on the development of this route. During the course of our meetings with the FAA and pilots, the FAA unilaterally developed voluntary offshore route concepts and presented them to the stakeholders. The last presentation we attended was on June 11, 201 5, and at that time the FAA proposed a route one

- quarter mile offshore. Later, we learned that, after that meeting, the FAA continued to meet with pilots on the development of the route. But, we were given no notice or opportunity to participate in those m eetings. We were also not given any notice or opportunity to participate in or observe the safety or environmental reviews. Now, we are only being told that a route has been developed. The prescribed distance offshore has still

not been disclosed to us. Re cently, we heard unofficially that this route would be much closer to shore
than one

- quarter mile. If true, the route has been changed from the route last presented to us. Based on these facts, it is inaccurate to state that an offshore route was developed “in collaboration with
stakeholders.”

Whether the offshore route is voluntary or mandatory, the most important factor is its distance offshore. Without the route being defined it is impossible for anyone to assess whether or not it would be effective in r educing noise. The dismissal letter did not mention that the FAA’s flight data analysis showed that helicopters currently average about one

- quarter mile offshore of the Torrance and Palos Verdes peninsula shorelines, even though no offshore route currently exists. To achieve a significant reduction in noise, the route would have to be farther offshore than one

- quarter mile. A route one

quarter mile offshore is similar to the current practice, so it would not significantly reduce overall noise. But, at least it might help get more helicopters to avoid flying directly above shorelines and beaches. On that basis, LAAHNC might be willing to support trying such a voluntary route (only for those helicopters required to fly close to shore) as a first step while eva luating its effectiveness. However, if the route is less than one

- quarter mile offshore, it would increase noise and be counterproductive.

“The FAA and the stakeholder working groups have made significant progress on each of the six actions specified in t he 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public Law No. 113

- 76 (January 3, 2014).”

LAAHNC Comment: Under any objective reading of the Act, significant progress has not been made. The Act stated, “ The Secretary shall (1) evaluate and adjust existing helicopter routes above Los Angeles, and make adjustments to such routes if the adjustments would lessen impacts on residential

areas and noise

- sensitive landmarks ... ” Under the Act, significant progress on this action was to have been made by January, 2015

. Now, almost a year and one

- half after the deadline for progress, n o routes or altitudes have been adjusted and no actual reduction in helicopter noise has been achieved

. “With this foundation, the FAA and stakeholders have made progress in identifying r oute adjustments that could lessen impacts on residential areas and noise

- sensitive landmarks while avoiding shifting noise from one residential neighborhood to another.”

LAAHNC Comment: This statement is incorrect. As participating stakeholders, we are no t aware of any progress in identifying routes in Los Angeles County for “adjustment ”. The only route underRECONSIDERATION OF LAAHNC PETITION FAA

- 2015

- 5044

– Special Federal Aviation Regulation ( SFAR) f or Los Angeles County Coastal Shore Line Route

Los Angeles Area Helicopter Noise Coalition (LAAHNC) 5 of 5 consideration that has the potential to lessen impacts without shifting noise from one residential area to another is the creation of a new offshore route. But, until the offshore route is defined, an evaluation

cannot be made as to whether it would actually reduce noise.

The foregoing constitutes the summary that may be published in the FEDERAL REGISTER as provided under Subpart B.

Executed at Torran ce, California on June 17 , 2016.

Richard Root, Vice President Los Angeles Area Helicopter Noise Coalition (LAAHNC)